A Nova Scotia woman murdered her only child after she was given an ultimatum by her boyfriend, a court was told.

Penny Boudreau pleaded guilty Friday to second-degree murder in the death of 12-year-old Karissa Boudreau last year in Bridgewater.

She was sentenced to life in prison with no eligibility for parole for 20 years.

According to an agreed statement of facts, Boudreau killed the girl after her boyfriend told her she had to choose between him or her daughter.

On Jan. 27, 2008, Boudreau drove the girl to a remote spot near the town, took her out of the car, knelt on her chest and strangled her with a piece of twine.

Boudreau could feel the girl struggling beneath her.

Karissa's last words were, "Mommy, don't."

Boudreau then put the body in the car and drove to a spot along the LaHave River. She pulled down Karissa's pants as she dragged the body to give the impression that the girl had been sexually assaulted.

After dumping the body over the embankment, Boudreau went home and told police her daughter had run away. She also called friends and teachers to spread the story.

The grim story of what happened to the 12-year-old girl came out as a result of an undercover police investigation.

Boudreau gave the details to officers posing as organized crime bosses, who said they could help her destroy evidence held by police.

The story of Karissa has gripped the small Nova Scotia community ever since her mother made a tearful plea at a news conference for her daughter's safe return.

At the time, Boudreau said they had had a fight in the parking lot of a grocery store, and when she came back to the car, Karissa was gone.

Several searches of the area turned up no sign of the young girl.

Two weeks later, a passerby discovered Karissa's frozen body on the banks of the LaHave River.

Boudreau was charged with first-degree murder last June.

Footonte ; if anybody thinks I enjoyed posting this - then think again. I keep flicking back to the photo of the innocent 12 -year -old girl victim and cry.It's a striking resemblance to one of my daughters at that age. Evil is running rampant and I fail to understand why such a thing happens? However, my faith keeps me balanced because judgment day is coming. Have NO doubts about this.

In what has been called a "stunning and unusual family law decision" released Jan. 16, a Toronto father was awarded sole custody of his three daughters, aged nine to 14. The "persistent and overwhelming" campaign by the mother over the course of more than a decade was recognized as emotional abuse by Ontario Superior Court Justice Faye McWatt, and the children have been sent to a California therapeutic recovery centre for treatment.

The couple, known as A. L. and K. D., have had a volatile relationship since they met 15 years ago. In spite of K. D. falsely alleging that A. L. sexually abused their first child, the couple had two more children between bouts of disaffection. K. D. -- herself dominated by a vindictive mother who had beaten her in childhood-- repeatedly called police after provoking physical confrontations with A. L., and frequently bad-mouthed him in front of the children.

According to the judgment against K. D., she is denied all contact with the girls, even by telephone or text messages She has been ordered not to come closer to them than 300 metres. A. L. has been given the right to confiscate their computers and cellphones. This is necessary, Justice McWatt said, because the mother had so poisoned her children's feelings toward their father that they had lost their capacity for independent judgment in relating to him.The father's lawyer, Harold Niman, said the decision is a wake-up call to vengeful parents. The message: They cannot punish their former spouses through their children with impunity. "Maybe if they realize the courts will actually step in and do something and there is a risk of not only losing custody, but having no contact with their children, they'll think twice about it," he said in an interview.In fact, I don't share Mr. Niman's optimism that this represents a sea change in the fortunes of the legions of alienated partners desperately seeking redress for the baseless loss of their children's affection.My files bulge with parental alienation stories in which this well-documented form of child abuse is ignored by judges. In this case, even just from media accounts, I note the following disturbing facts that suggest this judgment is an exception, rather than the harbinger of a rule:-In the case of the eldest child, the mother's obsessive demonization of the father was flagged eight years ago by a Toronto mediator and clinical psychologist who testified the mother would alienate the children from their father: Where was "the court" eight years ago?-The mother has been flouting the court-ordered visitation rights of the father since their separation, to the point of refusing his court-permitted thrice-weekly telephone calls (desperate for contact, he shouted good-night to the children through the doors): Where were the police who should have enforced access?-The Office of the Children's Lawyer, which alone decides which children it will assess and/or represent, did not get involved until the process was so far advanced that the damage was already done: Why did it take them so long?

-Even the judge noted that the father's unrelenting determination to see this battle through was unique, and only possible to someone with an unusually high income (A. L. is a vascular surgeon): How are ordinary people without resources supposed to fight on their children's behalf ?Sadly, what this case tells me is that only Herculean efforts by a well-heeled non-custodial parent can break through the Kafkaesque family law system. But at least it shines some light on Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS), a term describing the often-irreversible damage done to children brainwashed by an alienating parent into groundless hatred of the other parent.An alienator can be a mother or a father. But, since high-conflict court battles are almost always resolved with the mother having sole custody -- mothers are better placed to indulge this pathology without binding intervention.Indeed, in a long-term 2007 study published by developmental psychologist and PAS expert Amy Baker on adult survivors of PAS, the mother was the alienator in 36 of 40 cases. Baker's subjects reported that "their alienating parents behaved like cult leaders ... withdrawing love and affection when the child showed any positive feelings for the targeted parent."PAS is as real a form of child abuse as any other, and one that witnesses should report. The obvious sign is routine flouting of rightful access to the non-custodial parent -- a clear sign of contempt for the other parent's role in the children's lives.It is a moral scandal that such visitation rights are virtually never enforced, the violators never punished. Unless custodial parents who deny rightful access start going to jail, this exceptional victory will likely be remembered as a one-off before a return to the default "snooze" mode we are accustomed to in Canadian family courts.

For the first time in several decades, the F word is back on the agenda. No, I don't mean that we are all debating the merits of yet another misogynistic chef, but that feminism is taking centre stage.

MELANIE PHILLIPS: To place children with two gay men when an adoptive mother and father are available, just to uphold a brutal dogma, is a sickening assault on family life

When homosexuality was legalised back in 1967 did anyone dream that some four decades on a British grandmother and grandfather wanting to adopt their own grandchildren would be refused permission and the children adopted instead by two gay men?

The case in Edinburgh reported today, where precisely this grotesque development has occurred, illustrates the sickening way in which what started out as a decent attempt to be tolerant towards a minority lifestyle has turned into a totalitarian assault upon family life and human rights.

Embrace for comfort: The grandparents yesterday were distraught

For two years these grandparents fought for their right to care for the children, a five-year-old boy and his four-year-old sister, whose 26-year-old mother is a recovering heroin addict. But at 46 and 59 they were ruled to be too old to adopt.

Reluctantly, therefore, they agreed to the children being adopted by another couple, on the basis they would be brought up by a loving mother and father figure. But although several heterosexual couples were available to adopt them, the children were handed over instead to two gay men.

When the devastated grandparents objected they were threatened that unless they dropped their opposition they would never see their grandchildren again on account of their ‘negative’ attitude towards gay adoption.

There are so many layers to this gross and terrifying abuse of power that one hardly knows where to start.

The reason why adoption is so successful at raising healthy, well-adjusted children is that it replicates as far as possible the biological mother and father whose presence in the family is so crucial to the well-being of their children.

The prevailing argument that all types of family are as good as each other as far as the children are concerned simply isn’t true. While some children emerge relatively unscathed from irregular households, children need to be brought up by the two people ‘who made me’ - or, in adoptive households, in a family which closely replicates that arrangement.

Where that does not happen, the child’s deepest sense of his or her identity as a human being is at some level damaged.

More...

A child needs a mother and father because their roles in bringing that child up, and the way the child sees each of them, are not interchangeable. They are different and complementary, which is why if one of them is absent the child suffers, in many cases very badly indeed.

For very young children the absence of a mother, whose nurturing role cannot be replicated even by the most loving and attentive of fathers, is particularly tragic.

Therefore to say that depriving children of a mother figure is in their best interests - as the Edinburgh social workers have said - is clearly ridiculous.

Yes, in certain very unusual cases a lesbian couple or individual might be the best option for a child without a functioning family - if for example the child already has a particular attachment to such individuals, or if the only alternative is life in a children’s home.

But where an adoptive mother and father are available, to place children instead with two gay men is beyond perverse. Quite obviously, the interests of these children have been subordinated to politically correct considerations.

The powers invested in social workers to interfere in family life are extensive and draconian, and are granted only because of the acknowledged need to safeguard the interests of children against abusive family situations.

But in this case, it is Edinburgh social services department that has grossly abused its position of trust by intentionally placing these most vulnerable children in a position of disadvantage and maybe even harm for nothing other than ideological reasons.

Worse still, they have threatened and intimidated the children’s grandparents - for daring to object to a course of action for their own grandchildren which they think with good reason would be detrimental to them.

It is beyond pathetic to read the grandfather trying to protest that he is not ‘homophobic’ - all for having the temerity to say that his own grandchildren need a mother and father figure in their lives. For that he is branded a bigot.

Indeed, where ‘gay rights’ are concerned the old joke that what was once forbidden becomes in due course mandatory has now come all too true in post-morality Britain.

Despite the fact that gay adoption is opposed by most people - polls suggest that some 90 per cent are opposed in Scotland - the law that enabled it was rammed through Parliament with the help, to their eternal shame, of the politically correct Cameroons. Ever since, it has been promoted assiduously by left-wing councils – some of which forbid adoption by smokers and obese people but actively support gay fostering and adoption.

Such people routinely claim that research shows there are no adverse outcomes for children from same-sex adoption. These claims are totally untrue. The fact is that there are virtually no studies of children adopted by gay couples - or raised by male same-sex couples. In general, studies of same-sex child rearing are in turn extremely thin on the ground and methodologically too unsound to be authoritative.

Nevertheless they do suggest cause for concern: their emerging theme seems to be that children raised by same-sex couples exhibit poor outcomes not so dissimilar to those raised by divorced heterosexual parents.

While such studies can’t be relied upon they can’t be dismissed either. An American account published 20 years described what happened when a male child was conceived by a surrogate mother for two homosexual men. They hired various nannies to help look after the child - who developed severe behavioural problems, fantasising about ‘buying a new mother’ because of his profound need for a mother figure in his life.

But even to raise such concerns is to run the gauntlet of shrieks of ‘homophobia’. Such vilification is designed for one purpose - to stigmatise and thus silence altogether all opposition as ‘bigotry’.

The underlying agenda behind gay adoption, as it is behind the whole gay rights movement, is nothing to do with protecting the rights of gay people. Were it really so, there would be no objection. No-one should be discriminated against simply on the grounds of his or her sexuality.

That does not mean, however, that gay lifestyles must be regarded as of equal value to heterosexual households when it comes to the raising of children. To say that anyone who makes such a distinction is prejudiced is to turn reality on its head.

But that is indeed the whole point of the gay rights movement - to destroy the very notion of heterosexual norms of sexual behaviour and the definition of the family so that gay lifestyles can present themselves as ‘normal’.

This in turn is part of the broader onslaught upon the Judeo-Christian principles upon which British society and western civilisation are based, which has been mounted now for decades by ideologues of the left and which has progressively eviscerated family life on the altar of individual ‘lifestyle choice’.

The result is a world turned on its head in which what is harmful is said to be good and what is good is said to be harmful; tolerance has turned into gross intolerance; and upholding human rights has turned into an onslaught upon human rights.

The hapless Scottish grandparents are but the latest victims of a brutal totalitarian dogma, which anyone with an ounce of real liberal principle should denounce for the attack on justice, humanity and common-sense that it undoubtedly is.

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Parental alienation syndrome (PAS) is the insidious condition that the New Zealand judicial system fails to recognize. I have tirelessly argued that the syndrome exists before New Zealand government select committees, law commission staff , unscrupulous lawyers , backstabbing two faced psychologists and various bent Family Court judges for over seven heartbreaking-miserable years.

The professional filth that claim to act in the child's best interests just don't want to know about PAS, because it's a huge money spinner for the sickos on the hideous Family Court gravy train.PAS is unfair for dads and children. The fob off twits will not listen even though I can supply irrefutable evidence to prove that the ugly PAS exists.Sadly I can prove the evil Family Court actually promotes the condition by providing the suitable dark and secret environment so it can flourish by employing father destructive professionals.. The evidence is my badly damaged daughters.Where are the so called caring professionals assisting in picking up the shattered lives caused by PAS ? Well done Judge Boshier, as your cruel and callous Court has destroyed two young girls lives. Anyway rant over and below is a letter to editor of the New York Times from a learned uni chap from the states talking about PAS.

Monday, January 26, 2009

Sadly, this courageous father payed with his life, so he could protect a lady.How many men would just walk the other way and not get involved? My sincere condolences are extended to the family, especially the children, who will now grow up without a dad. Senseless waste of a good man.

“Dad dies helping woman”

“A father of three was trying to protect a woman being assaulted by a gang member when he was fatally stabbed, says a witness.”

The Sydney Morning Herald says the case is raising fears of financial clawbacks for other New Zealand surrogates. In another case an Auckland woman is eight months pregnant with a son to another Australian gay couple. Surrogacy is illegal in Queensland and other parts of Australia, but not in New Zealand.

A family law expert here says surrogates could be forced to pay child support in both countries if their babies were not adopted

Saturday, January 24, 2009

Mom loses custody for 'alienating' kids from their dad

January 24, 2009

Tracey Tyler

LEGAL AFFAIRS REPORTERIn a stunning and unusual family law decision, a Toronto judge has stripped a mother of custody of her three children after the woman spent more than a decade trying to alienate them from their father.The mother's "consistent and overwhelming" campaign to brainwash the children into thinking their father was a bad person was nothing short of emotional abuse, Justice Faye McWatt of the Superior Court of Justice wrote in her decision.The three girls, ages 9 to 14, were brought to a downtown courthouse last Friday and turned over to their father, a vascular surgeon identified only as A.L.Their mother, a chiropodist identified as K.D., was ordered to stay away from the building during the transfer and to have her daughters' clothing and possessions sent to their father's house.McWatt stipulated that K.D. is to have no access to the children except in conjunction with counselling, including a special intensive therapy program for children affected by "parental alienation syndrome." The mother must bear the costs.Harold Niman, the father's lawyer, said the decision serves as a wake-up call to parents who, "for bitterness, anger or whatever reason," decide to use their children to punish their former partners."Maybe if they realize the courts will actually step in and do something and there is a risk of not only losing custody, but having no contact with their children, they'll think twice about it," Niman said in an interview.McWatt's judgment was released Jan. 16 and published on legal databases this week. By yesterday, it was a hot topic within the family law bar.The judge said awarding A.L. sole custody was the children's only hope for having a relationship with their father, given their mother's long-running transgressions.These include ignoring court orders, shutting the door in A.L.'s face when he came to collect the children and refusing to answer the phone when he called to say goodnight. (He was granted telephone access to say good night on Monday, Wednesday and Friday). At times, she also arranged for police to show up when her daughters had overnight visits with their father.Eventually, K.D. cut off contact altogether, refusing to allow A.L. to see or speak with his daughters. He was reduced to shouting goodnight to them through the door of their home, often not knowing whether they were there."It is remarkable that A.L. has not given in to the respondent's persistence in keeping his children from him over the last fourteen years and simply gone on with his life without the children as, no doubt many other parents in the same situation would have and, indeed, have done," McWatt said.The mother squandered several chances to change her behaviour and is unable to accept it is in her children's best interests to have a relationship with their father, the judge said.Nicholas Bala, a Queen's University law professor who specializes in family law, said "badmouthing" or negative attitudes by one parent toward another is quite common among separated couples. But in recent years, the justice system has begun to understand the harmful effects of the worst form of this behaviour.In most cases, the problem is resolved through counselling, where parents are encouraged to accept they'll both always be in their children's lives, said Bala. "I tell them, `... if you're the survivor, you'll be going to the other's funeral, not because you love that person, but to support your children.'"Having said that, there are some people – and I think some of them are suffering from personality disorders – who will not respond to therapy and will not respond to directions from judges."Transferring custody is a last resort, because "it can be quite dramatic and traumatic" – yet sometimes better than the alternative, said Bala."We often talk about the best interests of the child, but often it's the least detrimental alternative, really."Bala said courts are unlikely to take such a drastic step without hearing expert testimony about what's happening in the family. A child may be avoiding a parent for legitimate reasons such as physical or emotional abuse.McWatt heard testimony from Barbara Fidler, a Toronto mediator and clinical psychologist who predicted eight years ago the three girls were at risk of becoming alienated from their father. The Office of the Children's Lawyer argued the family dynamics could not continue.Fidler said research points to long-term damage in people alienated from a parent in childhood. Children are more susceptible at about age 10 or 11, after their brains have developed to the point where they can hold positive and negative information about a parent. If what one parent is saying about the other doesn't accord with their own perceptions, they can become confused. In some cases, the only way out of the emotional conflict is to take one parent's side. The child can even begin inventing his or her own reasons for hating the other parent, the court was told.Early intervention is best, Niman said."Really, parental alienation is a process. If you can nip it in the bud, that's the best advice I can give to clients. "Because the longer it goes on, the more difficult it can be to undo."

Clive Anderson On radio, he chairs Unreliable Evidence, The Title Productions for Radio 4, in which Clive cross-examines some of the most eminent legal figures in the country.

He says, "My personal pleasure from Unreliable Evidence comes from getting to chair discussions on legal matters involving the highest level of judges and academics - the sort of figures who would have terrified me when I was actually practising as a barrister."

Thursday, January 22, 2009

One sign of a police state is the imprisonment of ordinary citizens for committing annoying acts. In America, over 200 people have been sent to prison for raising their voices on commercial airline flights, convicted of felonies under the laws of the Patriot Act.

And the lawyer for the dad says his client has now effectively lost his daughter since the mom has taken her to their native China."He may have lost the child forever," lawyer Robb Beeman told the Sun yesterday.

Beeman said police should have done a more thorough investigation before charging his client with sexual assault two years ago.

"It's one of those situations where if the police had done even a cursory exam, the warning bells should have gone off big time," Beeman said.

His client's statement of claim says the man was charged after the three-year-old gave a statement that was coerced by her mom and a friend of the mother's.

The two women "repeated a series of propositions to (the girl) suggesting (her father) had engaged in sexual conduct," the court document alleges.

"(They) threatened punishment and promised reward in an obvious effort to compel (her) to repeat and adopt these propositions." The statement was made in Mandarin in the presence of a Chinese-speaking police officer. "It's very obviously coached," Beeman said of the girl's statement. He said police should "know better than to let the friend of the mom do the questioning."

At one point during the interview, the friend, who was like an aunt to the child, told her if she didn't talk to police they wouldn't play with her any more, Beeman said. The lawsuit seeks damages for pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life and loss of reputation among others.

A statement of defence disputing the unproven allegations in the claim has not yet been filed

Monday, January 19, 2009

RADAR ALERT:

Where IS the Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting?

Recently, an ABC World News Report story by Charlie Gibson was presented as Protecting Teens from Teenage Violence. The more accurate name should have been How to Protect Your Daughters From Those Violent Teenage Boys.

A report issued by Richard L. Davis, MS and MA, "ABC News Report on Domestic Violence Dating: Harmful or Helpful?", shows that the media continues to present an awfully skewed portrayal of domestic abuse, completely ignoring the need to be gender neutral in its evaluation. Davis points to Liz Claiborne, Inc., which developed and distributed its own A Parent's Guide to Teen Dating Violence: Questions to Start the Conversation. This handbook completely ignored Liz Claiborne's own "teen relationship abuse survey" that clearly indicates that male teens are no more abusive than their female counterpart s. On the contrary, the survey indicated the opposite. Yet the handbook denotes "he" as the abuser and "she" as the victim throughout.

Interpretation of statistics can obviously be subjective, especially by the side who is viewing and attempting to extract a story from it. But as Davis points out, when presenting information to the masses, it is irresponsible to take the bits and pieces that are to your liking and throw out the rest.

Further, send a message to Liz Claiborne, Inc. that they can't ignore their own research ... that it dilutes the results and gives a false picture. You can reach them at loveisnotabuse@liz.com.

As always, be polite.

Date of RADAR Release: January 19, 2009

R.A.D.A.R. – Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting – is a non-profit, non-partisan organization of men and women working to improve the effectiveness of our nation's approach to solving domestic violence. http://www.mediaradar.org.

Sunday, January 18, 2009

The Government's willingness to give some of the country's top businessmen a big hug and bring them in on finding solutions to the recession is a refreshing change of mindset from that of the last government.

Labour always distrusted big business and, rejecting most of the private sector as too right-wing, it carefully selected its own small elite of moneymen to do its bidding, so long as they never challenged the Government's ideological position.

Remember the Knowledge Wave? It turned out to be barely a ripple. Labour largely ignored the outcomes from that talkfest because some of the suggestions were impure in terms of its ideological outlook.

For the past few months National has largely followed a Labour-like "me too" approach to government. At last it is beginning to look as if it's developing its own ideas, style and an independent approach.

After a near decade of Labour rule, a fresh way of doing things is long overdue and may help the Cabinet save money.

If National is willing to change the mindset Labour adopted when dealing with business and the economy it might also want to look at changing how the last government approached social policy.

The thick streak of political correctness that underlay Labour's approach to social issues is worth reappraising. It often produced illogical, inefficient, wasteful and downright silly outcomes.

For example, take one of my pet hates, the "It's Not OK" campaign against domestic violence in which a collection of earnest men smugly entreat other men to not give their partners and kids the bash.

This campaign followed an earlier series of commercials depicting thuggish blokes battering their way through the household.

The last government's strategy was to place the burden of responsibility for domestic violence always on men. To suggest otherwise was heresy, so the bureaucrats produced advertising campaigns solely targeted at stopping men being violent towards women.

Sadly, domestic violence continues unabated. This may well be because the government doctrine of "Blame the Bloke" ignores some very real scientific research that questions the conventional thinking on the issue.

For years, Professor David Fergusson from the University of Otago, Christchurch, has been responsible for a longitudinal study of 1265 children born in Canterbury in mid-1977. As part of that research, he studied the issue of violence, ranging from psychological abuse to serious physical attack between partners.

Professor Fergusson found that, among young adults, men and women are equally violent towards each other.

The research also showed the range of violence committed by men and women is similar and the consequences, in injury and psychological effects, are also much the same for both sexes. This is no oddball piece of academic research. It is backed by the findings of similar international studies.

Fergusson concludes the root cause of domestic violence is not solely bullying men.

He reckons violent partnerships are more likely to be associated with childhood adversity, mental health disorders and other life traumas.

In other words, violent partnerships are more likely to spring up where people have experienced serious difficulties and disadvantages in life.

In 2006 he advised government agencies that his study "suggests the need for a broadening of analysis of domestic violence away from focusing on male perpetrators and female victims to examining violent couples who use aggression in their relationship". Fergusson was ignored.

Multi-million-dollar advertising campaigns stressing male aggressors and female victims continued and intensified even though the Fergusson study would suggest this approach was ineffective and a waste of money.

The only rational explanation is that Fergusson's advice was politically unacceptable to Labour. They were cemented into a blindly feminist position of "women good, men bad".

The truth is, both sexes can be bad and trying to attribute blame to just one sex is senseless and futile.

If the huge budget currently being spent on targeting violent males and trying to convince them to change their nasty ways was, instead, used to treat the real cause - social disadvantage, deprivation and mental illness - we might start seeing some results. The cost to taxpayers from domestic violence might reduce.

A change of government is a chance to reappraise not just the approach to combating domestic violence but an opportunity to challenge the accepted methods of doing things all across the board in social policy.

Ministers should learn to question every long-accepted philosophical approach in their departments.

Not only might it reduce costs, it could mean that the taxpayer starts seeing some real value for money for a pleasant change.

Further reform the welfare and benefit systems to improve support and incentives for people to move from benefits into work and to provide greater choice and control for disabled people. The bill is closely linked with the child poverty bill; and will be preceded by a response to the Green Paper “No one written off: reforming welfare to reward responsibility” which consulted on options to modernise the benefit system, delivering value for money for the taxpayer while providing support for people at the time they need it most. The changes will also focus on promotion of personal responsibility and independence, making clearer the relationship between the support people can receive and the expectations of them to participate fully in society.

The main elements of the Bill are:

Measures to better enable people to take advantage of the considerable help on offer to them and where appropriate, to undertake training that is considered essential to finding employment;

A range of measures which strengthen the benefit contract between the individual and society – the individual’s right to support in exchange for clear personal responsibility for improving their own circumstances

Enactment of the requirement for joint birth registration set out in the White Paper – “Joint birth registration: recording responsibility” published in June 2008

A number of measures to strengthen the requirements of non-resident parents to contribute to their children’s upbringing, as part of a package which champions personal responsibility in the welfare system.

Measures to modernise and simplify the benefit system, ensuring that support provides help at the time and in the manner most needed.

The main benefits of the Bill are:

Giving disabled people greater choice and control;

Strengthening parental responsibility;

Reducing welfare dependency;

Greater requirements to undertake work, training or other activity in
preparation for work;

Increasing personal responsibility within the welfare system;

Delivering value for money for the taxpayer.

Territorial Extent

Northern Ireland only

England and Wales

Scotland only

Theme

Making the most of your potential

Consultation

The Government issued the Green Paper “No one written off: reforming welfare to reward responsibility” in July. Around 1100 responses were received and the Government will be responding shortly.

Other Actions

In addition to the proposals in the Bill, the Government is also
undertaking the following:

The introduction of the Employment and Support Allowance from October 2008, which focuses on supporting people into work and does not automatically assume that because a person has a significant health condition or disability they are incapable of work;

The Carers Review – “Carers at the heart of the 21st-century families and communities” was published 10 June 2008.

Secret courts are once again routine in England in a way not seen since the days of Henry VIII and the Court of Star Chamber. A justice system which once was the beacon of the world is being corrupted by senior judges. Family Courts have created a system comprising a class of unaccountable people who - although paid out of public funds - cannot be scrutinised by the electorate or indeed the wider class of all those, including children and foreigners, who are potentially subject to the jurisdiction of the English Courts.

Family Courts have granted themselves the dictator's freedom to operate behind closed doors while making decisions which claim to be done in our name. Making legitimate and legally binding decisions requires public administration of justice which prevents injustice, corruption, perjury and rip-off lawyers. In Family law above all judicial discretion reigns supreme and the only check on judicial injustice and prejudice is public scrutiny. English Family Courts ban the public's presence during court hearings - this creates rotten judicial discretion and corruption and wholesale damage to children and families whose interests the Courts are meant to serve. The paramountcy principle of the child's welfare is routinely dishonoured behind the safety of closed doors.

Those who suffer injustice at the hands of legal sharks inside secret family courts are forbidden from publicising what they have suffered on pain of up to 2 years imprisonment for contempt of court. It has even been made an offence to publish the mere orders of those courts or to publish the bare fact of proceedings taking place [s.97(2)(6) Children Act 1989]. Those who appeal and take their complaints to higher courts are denied the right to use their name henceforth by rubberstamp injunctions added automatically by court officials. A person's unfettered use of his own identity is removed from them. The Courts forbid the press from identifying anyone who has been processed in these secret courts. When once a person was human he becomes the letter A, B or X,Y,Z, initialised into oblivion irrespective of his complaints or wishes: some judges even anonymise the names of expert witnesses and other judges involved in the case - the very people above all who should be identified and subject to scrutiny.

"If the authorities believe there is evidence to justify taking a child into care, they should present it in open court. If the judge thinks the child should not be named, that would be up to him or her, but the evidence should be tested in public." 1 Information that has been in the public domain, or has been printed in mass circulation newspapers, or is freely available on the Internet, now gets routinely gagged and injuncted.

The first show trials against major critics of this regime were stated in 2003, and are in court later in 2004. Dr M.J.Pelling who took a test case to the ECHR at Strasbourg and subsequently published his Children Act Judgment is being prosecuted by the UK Attorney-General. Those who speak out or write about the evils of UK's secret courts have thus become criminalised.

A 17-year-old New Zealand girl was arrested this week after falsely claiming that she was dragged off by three youths and sexually assaulted at knifepoint, The Rotorua Daily Post reported. (“Calls for help, not charges,” January 8, 2009.) The news report explained that this was the second alleged false sexual assault claim local police have dealt with since November.

The article quotes Dr. Kim McGregor, director of New Zealand’s Rape Prevention Education, who spoke about false rape complainants: “I would recommend some form of therapeutic intervention rather than charging them.” Dr. McGregor claims that “someone needed to be ‘pretty distressed’ to make a false allegation of sexual assault,” and that “very few women made false complaints as a form of revenge.” This claim runs counter to Professor Eugene Kanin’s landmark study of rape claims in a mid-size Midwestern city over the course of nine years, in which he found that 27% of the false rape claims were motivated by revenge.

Dr. McGregor also notes that “international research showed 2-3 per cent of all sexual abuse allegations made were false.” This claim, of course, is contradicted by every serious study of false rape claims ever conducted. They all put the percentage much higher.

The news report also quotes Louise Nicholas, a local sexual abuse educator and former rape complainant, who notes that “it didn't help sexual abuse victims making legitimate complaints, particularly those who feared not being believed.” Ms. Nicholas also suggests that “there could be underlying issues surrounding the false complaints which needed to be resolved,” and that “there needed to be more services available to help women who had been sexually assaulted as the current services were stretched.”

This news account is sadly typical of how mainstream news media treat the crime of false reporting of rape. News reports generally blink at the harm to innocent men and boys often caused by false reporting of rape. They rarely discuss the fact that false rape victims have been killed, beaten, spat upon, fired from their jobs, jailed, and raped while in jail, or that they have lost their wives, their girlfriends, their businesses, and their sanity, or that some have even killed themselves.

It is commonplace for reporters to obtain information about this crime from sexual assault counselors who, instead of talking about false rape claims, often – as Ms. Nicholas did – change the subject and talk instead about rape, an entirely different crime that, in these cases, was not committed.

Relying on unsupported or demonstrably erroneous information, these counselors routinely insist – as Dr. McGregor did – that false rape reports are not a serious threat to men. The only threat posed by this crime, they often say, is to (hypothetical) victims of rape who, because of the falsehood, may be deterred from coming forward. They do not mention the threat, just proved imminent, to (real) victims of false rape accusations, men and boys whose lives are often destroyed by these lies. Some counselors go so far as to suggest that false rape accusers are not criminals at all.

In this report, Dr. McGregor suggests it is inappropriate to punish false accusers. The reporter does not bother to challenge Dr. McGregor’s startling assertion that crimes capable of destroying innocent lives should routinely go unpunished, nor does she ask how other false accusers could be deterred from similar misconduct.

In the end, this report leaves many questions unanswered. Chief among them: would Dr. McGregor support not punishing a young rapist who’d committed his crime because he was “pretty distressed”? And: if there are no criminal sanctions for their wrongdoing, what’s to stop women from falsely accusing men with impunity?

A Vancouver Island dad has lost custody of his two young girls, as well as had his time with them severely curtailed, after he blew the whistle on his ex-wife's illegal use of a kitchen spatula to punish the grade schoolers.
Provincial Court Judge Bruce Macfarlane awarded sole custody to the mom last month-- tossing out the couple's interim joint-custody order -- on the grounds the kids' feelings for their dad had soured after he told police and the B.C. Children's Ministry about the utensil spankings.
I have withheld the family's name to protect the privacy of the kids.
Macfarlane conceded that repeatedly beating the youngsters on the bum with a household "spank spatula" for several years, "was a serious matter and against the law."
"The use of an instrument to discipline a child is unacceptable under any circumstances," he said, echoing part of an earlier finding by the Supreme Court of Canada.
But he rejected the dad's assessment that the corporal punishment amounted to child abuse.
Instead, he scolded the 47-year-old for tattling to authorities rather than discussing his concerns with his ex -- a more diplomatic, rational approach, according to Macfarlane, who has since retired.
The mother later told officials that the spankings always ended with a talk on "how God forgave them and still loved them and that Jesus died for our sins, so all are forgiven."
The judge -- despite expressing serious doubts about the mom's credibility, given she initially denied physically punishing them -- concluded that thwacking the kids' buttocks with the long-handled, hard-rubber cooking implement had caused them no lingering harm.
What had damaged them, he said, was the relentless hostility between mom and dad, who the children admitted "hate each other's guts."
Interviewed by officers after the dad's disclosure 15 months ago, the girls said they didn't want to hang out with him any longer because of "the way he treats our family -- it sucks."
While conceding that dad and the kids had been getting along fine before the officials intervened, Macfarlane rejected the notion that the mom's reaction might have fostered the falling-out between the girls and their dad, a producer in the family-entertainment industry.
"The evidence falls short of establishing parental alienation," he said.
The judge said it wouldn't be a good idea to hand the girls over to their dad because of the bitterness they felt and the fact they hadn't visited him for a while.
"The court would be placing them in an unknown situation and environment," he stated.
"With [the mom], there is a known environment and the girls appear to be progressing at least academically better than average."
As for the dad, he'll have to wait until the kids and their counsellor agree to see him -- and his first three visits must be supervised.
"I was punished for bringing the matter to the proper authorities, and there's little I can do -- I don't have the money to appeal," he told me, after launching a lawsuit against the investigating officers for negligence for not taking further action against the mom.

Monday, January 12, 2009

There is clearly something wrong with our legal system and our priorities when cricket and football umpires are subjected to more scrutiny than judges.

How can it be that people adjudicating on leg before wicket and push in the back decisions are held more accountable than those who preside over trials that can send people to jail for years?

How bizarre that we can watch countless replays from every angle of the circumstances leading to an umpire's decision, but aren't even told the name of a trial judge whose decision has been appealed against.

Like many aspects of the judicial system, the Court of Appeal's refusal to identify judges whose peformance it reviews is quaint at best.

The rulings and reasons of the Court of Appeal in this state are easily accessible online. The court's judgments name the three judges on the appeal bench, the appellant, the respondent and the barristers and solicitors who appeared for each side.

The only name missing is the identity of the Supreme Court or County Court judge who presided over the trial which later generated an appeal against conviction or sentence.

Court of Appeal judgments coyly refer to "the learned sentencing judge", "the learned trial judge", "His Honour" or "Her Honour" in assessing the judge's rulings made during the trial and the warnings, directions or other instructions given to the jury.

Many other jurisdictions in Australia, including the High Court, are not so precious.

In New South Wales, the appeal court names the court, the date and the judicial officer whose work is being assessed. Tasmania, Western Australia, the Northern Territory and the ACT have the same policy, and High Court judgments on Victorian appeal cases also name the judge involved.

Appeal courts in Queensland and South Australia appear to believe, like Victoria, that politeness is more important than public interest.

Chief Justice Marilyn Warren, the state's most senior judge, describes the practice of not routinely naming judges on appeal as a matter of courtesy and convention.

Chief Justice Warren says there has been no attempt to in any way hide information, and there is no reason to doubt her, but surely the practice she inherited was originally based on a desire to avoid embarrassing members of the judicial old boys' network.

It makes as much sense as some other legal conventions, like everyone in court having to bow to the bench and lawyers and judges wearing horsehair wigs.

In these days when we hear so much about openness and transparency, the notion that judges should be shielded from criticism of their performance is Victorian in every sense.

County Court judges are paid a salary of $277,158 a year with a 60 per cent non-contributory pension. Supreme Court judges receive $319,900 a year with the same pension arrangements.

Retrials cost between $75,000 and $100,000 for a five day trial.

In the last six months the Court of Appeal has heard 58 appeals. With such large amounts of taxpayer funds involved, there is a strong argument for transparency.

Chief Justice Warren questions the use of appeal statistics as "a scorecard for judges" and says they can not be taken at face value without examining individual cases and the reasons for appeal decisions.

But the state's Director of Public Prosecutions, Jeremy Rapke, QC, recently asserted that record numbers of successful appeals suggested something was seriously wrong with the way criminal trials were being conducted.

With that in mind, surely the identity of the judges most frequently appealed against - and the outcome of those appeals - is a matter of public interest.

The public is entitled to know the names of judges found to have made errors leading to successful appeals, particularly if they are found to have erred on a regular basis.

In fact, it's hard to understand why the appeal statistics made available by Chief Justice Warren - to her great credit - would not have already been sought by the leaders of our courts, rather than by an inquisitive newspaper.

Like cricket and football umpires, journalists or any other public figure in a position of power and influence, our judges should not be above the law.

And in the words of another, more logical, legal convention, justice must not only be done but be seen to be done.

Saturday, January 10, 2009

Questions have been raised about the true meaning of fatherhood in a recent Ontario Superior Court ruling that decided a Toronto-area man must continue paying child support to his former wife, despite DNA tests that proved he was not the biological father of her 16-year-old twins.
The decision appears to underline a trend that suggests biological connections play a much lesser role in defining the meaning of fatherhood in a court system that is increasingly considering the best interests of the affected children and redefining the concept of family.

"These kids treated him as a father, and knew him as a father. And the Supreme Court of Canada said we should look at this issue based on the child's best interest, and it certainly in the child's best interest to continue to be supported by the only man they have ever known as a father," said Kelly Jordan, a partner at Jordan Battista LLP in Toronto.

Ms. Jordan, an expert in family law, said the decision is based on the Divorce Act, which states a child of a marriage can be any child for whom one stands in the place of a parent.

In the recent case, in which the mother said she did not recall having an extramarital affair and the father said he had been misled about the origin of children he raised as his own, the judge decided that since "he was the only father the twins knew during the course of the marriage," he was responsible for continuing that relationship after the couple's separation."

"While the failure of Ms. [Anciolina]Cornelio to disclose to her husband the fact that she had an extramarital affair and that the twins might not be his biological children may well have been a moral wrong against Mr. [Pasqualino] Cornelio, it is a wrong that does not afford him a legal remedy to recover child support he has already paid, and that does not permit him to stop paying child support," Judge Katherine van Rensburg wrote in her summary on Dec. 22, 2008.

Mr. Cornelio had suspicions about the twins' parentage before seeking joint custody in 2002, four years after the couple separated. The judge ruled that since Mr. Cornelio sought joint custody despite these suspicions, it was apparent he considered himself to be the father.

But Walter Fox, a lawyer who has been working with fathers' rights groups for more than 15 years, said Mr. Cornelio should have been given the opportunity to decide how he would have acted knowing the children were not biologically his.

"Learning that he is not the biological father, it can be a game-changer if he makes it so. He's been given no choices throughout this. And the court continues to say he has no choice," Mr. Fox said.

"These children have been raised by a man who believed he was their father and wasn't, and that is something they should have to deal with.

"Everybody has a struggle with something in their lives, and this is something those children should have to deal with."

But Ms. Jordan contends it is likely the same decision would have been reached even if the father had not had any doubts since it is in line with recent legal judgments. With adoptions and the formation of non-traditional families more commonplace, courts now look beyond genetics to determine what makes a family.

Ms. Jordan pointed to a 2006 ruling that allowed a lesbian who conceived with an anonymous donor to put her partner on the birth certificate.

"You've got a situation here, for 16 years he raises these ... [children] as his own and looking at it with the lens of what is best for these kids, I don't think he can say, 'I would have done it differently had I known.' Because he may have, he may have not."

Harold Niman, an expert in family law at Niman Zemans Gelgoot LLP in Toronto, says that there is no question that Mr. Cornelio is legally the children's father, although he believes he has a fair complaint about being misled by the mother.

"What I see as being the question that flows from this situation is should the mother be accountable? Not in the sense of losing child support, because child support is for the benefit of the children, but should she be accountable in law to the father for having deceived him?" he said.

He claims to have suffered months of frustration over visits to his young son and said he was left with no option but to take such drastic action.

Mr Macfarlane, of Corporation Road, Denton said: "I took my ladder and scrambled up at 6am. No one noticed. Eventually I shouted ‘Good morning’ to a policeman. He glanced up and froze. He ran inside to raise the alarm."

Emergency services were called along with a family liason officer and later a member of social services who agreed to talk to him. Mr Macfarlane, who is estranged from the tot’s mum, has since been in contact with Matt O’Connor, the founder of pressure group Fathers 4 Justice, for advice.

He said: "I can’t begin to explain how horrible it was to be in that situation but when you have been driven to such lengths, it seems like the only option left."

He came down just after 10am and was arrested for causing a nuisance to the public and emergency services.

But the charges were later dropped and he was given a police caution instead. He added: "I’m not proud of what I did. I’ve never been in trouble before, but I have no regrets."